Quote:
Originally Posted by jem
I can’t really argue against your goals and wishes; but again the devil is in the detail.
“......and urged the government to show the "political courage" to ban social media for children under 16 until platforms can definitively prove they are safe.”
OK easy enough, just as banning the carrying of knives has stopped all stabbings, hasn't it - it’s trivial to ban, but how do you enforce it? And however can you possibly absolutely define that they are safe - define ‘safe’, in such a way that will stand up in Court. Your definition of what is safe content might be radically different to mine.
Parental Access to Data - that may be a red line that the social media companies wont cross. Remember they are mostly American, and if they simply refuse to obey any UK law, and go to the White House, offer a few million towards paying for the ‘People’s Ballroom’.....?
"Several parents highlighted the tragic fact that they still cannot access their late children's online data to find out what content influenced their deaths...”
OK, think of it from the social media company’s perspective, they may not well know who that individual actually was, they may have signed up with false names and details etc. So they get a demand to hand over that person's information to someone who ‘claims’ to be the parents, but they have no way to be absolutely sure. They make one mistake, being under US jurisdiction, the legal ramifications don’t bear thinking about. You can see why their knee-jerk reaction will be ‘absolutely not’. Jog on!
None of the above means that I am not understanding of the issue, or that something does need to be done. But not a case of ’something needs to be done, this is something, therefore it must be done’.
Technical measures are simply not going to work; it’s education, it’s parental responsibility, and yes I know that’s not a given but you really shouldn’t punish or cause inconvenience for everyone because of the actions of a minority - I believe it is called ‘collective punishment’, somewhat frowned on!
|
A well thought out post with some good points made.
Just to add that supporters of legislation would say that banning under 16's is less about punishment and more about protecting children from the harms that these sites can cause.
Even if they are not targeted by sexual predators, scammers, blackmailers etc, they are designed to be addictive. A survey of today's 16 to 24 year olds on yesterdays Womans Hour said that they wished for things to be different for the next generation of young people.